Legal Research
Cases
Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott

Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott

Case [1999] FCA 1538 10 November 1999

Defamation

False Innuendo

Natural and Ordinary Meaning

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott [1999] FCA 1538
Defamation
(1999) 167 ALR 224, (1999) 94 FCR 296

Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott [1999] FCA 1538

RANDOM HOUSE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED V THE HON ANTHONY JOHN ABBOTT AND MARGARET VERONICA ABBOTT

A 23 OF 1999

RANDOM HOUSE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED V THE HON PETER HOWARD COSTELLO AND TANYA PAMELA COSTELLO

A 24 of 1999

JUDGES: BEAUMONT, MILES & DRUMMOND JJ.

DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

DEFAMATION - meaning of publication - natural and ordinary - false innuendo - whether particulars of meaning required to be pleaded as imputations or false innuendos - whether publication conveyed imputations as pleaded - whether imputation of lacking personal integrity defamatory - whether imputation of shallow political commitment defamatory - whether imputation of being of weak and unreliable character defamatory - whether trial judge erred in reading "sexually promiscuous" as meaning "guilty of unchastity" - whether publication bore an imputation of unchastity - whether imputation of sexual promiscuity defamatory - whether imputation of unchastity defamatory - whether imputation of low moral standards defamatory - whether imputation of being a political manipulator was defamatory.

DEFAMATION - procedural fairness - whether the appellant was denied natural justice when trial judge found an imputation not pleaded was conveyed by the publication.

DEFAMATION - damages - whether award of damages excessive - whether failure to apologise justified an award of ordinary compensatory damages - whether failure to apologise gives rise to aggravated damages - whether respondent received double compensation for failure to apologise in award for ordinary compensatory damages and aggravated compensatory damages.

John Fairfax v Punch (1980) 31 ALR 624 referred to

Alexander v Jenkins [1892] 1 QB 797 cited

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers (1998) 193 CLR 519 considered

Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 considered

Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1964) AC 234 cited

Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 cited

Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters Limited [1968] 2 QB 322 cited

Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 referred to

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 considered

Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176 cited

Coyne v Citizen Finance Limited (1991) 172 CLR 211 referred to

Humphries v TWT Ltd (1994) 120 ALR 693 considered

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Comalco Ltd (1986) 68 ALR 259 cited

David Syme & Co Ltd v Grey (1992) 115 ALR 247 cited

Hadzel v De Waldorf (1970) 16 FLR 174 cited

Cairns & Morosi v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 708 considered

Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (No 1) (1915) 84 LJKB 2145 cited

Woodger v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1992) 107 ACTR 1 cited

Polly Peck (Holdings) Plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 cited

Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463 considered

Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 cited

Cooke and The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott

Details

AGLC: Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott [1999] FCA 1538
Case: [1999] FCA 1538
Decision Date: 10 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott concerned a defamation claim brought by the respondent, Mr Abbott, against the appellant, Random House Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from comments made in a book published by the appellant, which Mr Abbott argued defamed him. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine various issues related to the meaning of publication, the nature of the defamatory imputations, and the assessment of damages.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether particulars of meaning needed to be pleaded as imputations or false innuendos, and if the publication conveyed the imputations as pleaded. The court had to ascertain whether specific imputations, such as lacking personal integrity, being of shallow political commitment, or having a weak and unreliable character, were defamatory. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in interpreting certain terms and whether the imputations of unchastity or low moral standards were defamatory. The court also examined procedural fairness in relation to imputations not pleaded by the respondent.

The court found that the publication conveyed the imputations as pleaded, including the imputation of lacking personal integrity, which was deemed defamatory. The court clarified that the term "sexually promiscuous" did not necessarily mean "guilty of unchastity" and concluded that the imputation of unchastity was not conveyed by the publication. The imputation of low moral standards was also found to be defamatory. The court determined that the trial judge did not err in his interpretation of the terms and found that the imputation of being a political manipulator was not defamatory. Regarding damages, the court held that the award of damages was not excessive and that the failure to apologise justified an award of ordinary compensatory damages. However, the court found that the failure to apologise did not give rise to aggravated compensatory damages, as the respondent had already been compensated for the failure to apologise in the award for ordinary compensatory damages.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and the decision of the lower court be upheld.

Orders